Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 1195 of 1981, decided on 2nd February, 1982.
(On appeal from the order dated 28‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 5563 of 1981).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑
-----S. 13 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Ex parte decision ‑ Leave to appeal ‑ Petitioners tenants allowed several adjournments on payment of costs but repeatedly absenting themselves on several dates of hearing‑Petitioners' conduct, held, dis-entitled themselves to invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdi ction of High Court and no justifiable ground existed to interfere with decision of High Court in not setting aside ex paste order of ejectment passed against petitioners.
G. A. Farid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
Irshad Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1982.
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.
‑The petitioners, who are tenants in respect of the property in question, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 28‑11‑1981, whereby their writ petition against an ex paste order of ejectment passed against them by the Controller and affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Lahore, was dismissed in limine.
2. It appears from the submissions made that the Controller had passed an order on 7‑10‑1979 to proceed ex parte against the petitioners on account of their non‑appearance. On their application the order was recalled on payment of costs. Subsequently, too, costs were imposed, once of Rs. 40 on 1‑3‑1980 and again of Rs. 20 on 10.5‑1980 on account of their non‑appearance. On 25‑5‑1980 an order for proceeding against them ex parte was again passed by the Controller on account of their non‑appearance. Their applica tion for setting aside the same was, after due hearing, rejected on 10‑7‑1980, on which date the order of ejectment was also passed on the basis of the evidence already produced by the landlord. The petitioners went in appeal before the District Judge, Lahore, but there, too, they repeated their act of non‑appearance. They were even penalized by the imposition of costs of Rs. 100.00 by the appellate Court. Nevertheless, they did not appear on the final date for hearing of arguments. The High Court found that no case had been made out for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The contention urged before us is that the difficulty of the lawyer had not been considered by the Courts below, that the non‑appearance was on account of miscalculation by the petitioners' lawyer, that sufficiency of the grounds for setting aside the order of the Controller was not considered by the appellate Court and that the evidence of A. W. 1 having been recorded ex parte could not be taken into consideration after' the ex parte order ha been set aside. From the conduct of the petitioners as brought out above we find little justification to interfere with the order of the High Court. They had invoked the extraordinary discretionary Jurisdiction under the Constitution but in view of their conduct the High Court was not unjustified in its discre tion not to intervene. The petition for leave to appeal, is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer